The appellants brought actions in Ontario against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged human rights abuses committed by Tanzanian police at a mine in Tanzania.
The motion judge dismissed the actions for lack of jurisdiction and alternatively stayed them on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding Tanzania to be the clearly more appropriate forum.
On appeal, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in his forum non conveniens analysis by misapprehending the location of Barrick's head office, applying the wrong evidentiary standard, and failing to properly assess the risk of unfairness in Tanzania.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's discretionary weighing of factors, particularly given that the vast majority of witnesses and evidence were located in Tanzania.
